Argument and Analysis

Chivalry For All

What is the writer’s point of view?

The writer’s point of view is to prove that “chivalry” is not meant to be offensive. Most women today take offense from chivalrous acts because it takes away the idea that men and women are equal. However chivalry is not just something a man can do, women can be chivalrous too.

What are the writer’s claims here?

The writer’s claim is that “chivalry is far more than good manners” (Morgan). As well as chivalry not being an adjective that represents a man but a woman as well.

What evidence does the author offer for these claims?

The author quotes a chivalry website that states the standards of chivalry. She also refers to Camelot: the site of King Arthur’s palace and court.

Does the evidence persuade you?

Yes it does. My idea of chivalry has been the cliche, common idea of a man being a gentleman and providing testimonies of their love. In the essay, it provides a definition of what chivalry is, “truthful, loyal, courteous to others, helpmates to women, supporters of justice, and defenders of the weak” (chivalrynow.net). All of those things can certainly apply to a woman.

What counter-argument might a reasonable person offer in response?

I believe that a woman and a man can counter argue the idea of this essay. A man may state that since women don’t want chivalry, there is no reason to act chivalrous. In completely getting rid of chivalry, it ruins the chivalrous man a woman longs to find. A woman opposed to chivalry sees the ancient idea of men doing outrageous acts to rescue a damsel in distress, where distress is nowhere to be seen.

Which aspects of the essay sound wrong to you? Which assumptions or conclusions or implications strike you as problematic or unreasonable?

I really do agree with the whole essay. Morgan writes “ Chivalry is about respect. Respect for yourself and for your lover - and the commitment to serve and honor each other.” The whole essay is based off of that sentence, which clearly addresses a man and a woman.

VS

The Dialogue

It’s Just a DoorScene: A young man by the name of Julian is walking out of an office when he see’s a young lady walking into the office. Julian opens the door for her and allows for her to walk in before he walks out, the young lady’s name is Jessie. Jessie: Why would you do that? Julian: I’m sorry, do what? Jessie: Go to open the door for me, and let me walk in before you were going to walk out. Julian: Because I always open the door for others? If I didn’t know any better, I’d assume you’re offended by me opening the door for you. Jessie: Why didn’t you just walk out? I could’ve gotten the door myself. Julian: Well I could’ve done that, but that’s not very polite. And if I just opened the door for myself, it was clear you were standing right there. And that would have led to the awkward dancing. Jessie: No, you opened the door for me because that’s what guys are supposed to do right? Julian: Well, that too, yes. I’ve always been taught that it’s the polite thing to do. Jessie: You’re one of those chivalrous dudes aren’t you? Always going out of your way for a lady, and for what? What’s it to you? Julian: I didn’t ask for you to thank me or acknowledge me for holding the door for you. Because it is not a big deal whatsoever. I can’t believe girls like you get so offended about a guy doing something nice for you, just to do something nice. Jessie: Girls like me? You mean a strong women that is capable of the things you do as a “man”? You think I want my cake and eat it too. You think I want to be independent yet still want a man to treat me like some fragile, new born baby (Lynn 1). Julian: You think we’re stuck in medieval times where we have to treat you like you’re made of glass, but it’s you girls that are stuck in the past, “chivalry” isn’t making you less of a person. It’s about respect. Respect for yourself and your lover, and the commitment to serve and honor each other (Morgan 216). Sure, you’re not my lover, but you’re still someone that deserves it. You should try it sometime.

Argument Proposal

Here are the important claims in my initial essay.

Because of equal rights, feminism, or particular relationships, women chivalry has become something to be seen offensive by women because chivalry deconstructs everything women have built to be independent and equal with men.

Chivalry is no longer the medieval idea that women are fragile and need an immense amount of protection and outrageous acts proving their loyalty to their beloved. “Chivalry is about respect. Respect for yourself and for your lover and the commitment to serve and honor each other” (Morgan).

Women can be chivalrous as well, proving that chivalry is equal. For example, a woman should have respect for their lover and their commitment.

Here is an opposing claim in this conversation.

A feminist may say that in Morgan’s quote, “serving” one another defies what women have worked to destroy the image of women being a man’s server. As well as a man serving his woman in ways not applicable to what feminists believe in.

Just because it’s “friendly” doesn’t make it any less sexist (Lynn).

Here is what I think is questionable or problematic with some of these claims.

A feminist takes the statement too literal in the sense of “serving” and the argument is repealed because it goes far more than actually serving one an other, instead mutually meeting each others needs in a relationship.

The exception of a man honestly being friendly questions the claim of there being a hidden objective through kind, friendly acts.

Here is my claim (thesis) in this conversation.

Although chivalry may be expected by women there are certain women who no longer want it because of equal rights, feminism, or particular relationship histories.

Here is what other scholars might say about my thesis.

Gender roles have evolved into social norms, often describing what men and women "should" do or what is considered admirable or attractive for their sex. These stereotypes have even gone as far as to suggest what is feminine and what is masculine (Go Ask Alice).

Here are some additional data that support my claim or refute the claims of others.

The “cake and eat it too” complaint explained by A. Lynn says that women want special, not equal, treatment

Not all women are radical, male-bashing feminists, just as not all women are born romantics with an appreciation for old-fashioned gender roles. The spectrum is wide and long, and each woman falls at some varying degree (Krumm).

Progression 3 Essay

Chivalry? Sure. Feminism; the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. In the 1800’s and early 1900’s idea of women advocating equal rights would have sounded preposterous. Further than a century ago, in the medieval era the idea that women no longer would accept or expect chivalry from a man would have sounded unacceptable. Men were raised to be a lady’s knight in shining armor, more literal than metaphorical but still being raised to serve their beloved. In modern society the term feminism has focused a lot on the social equality aspect. With the focus on social equality, chivalrous acts has become an act of deconstructing everything women have advocated for to be equal with men. However, just like the feminist community has grown and developed so has the idea of chivalry and what chivalry in modern society is. There is still women who long for a chivalrous man and men who firmly believe in chivalry being an honorable trait. Although chivalry may be expected by women there are certain women who no longer want it because of equal rights, feminism, or particular relationship histories. As a woman of course I expect to be equal with men in my community, political community, and work community. I believe women exceeds a mans intelligence in numerous fields just as men may exceed a woman's intelligence in numerous field all depending on how far a person craves to further their knowledge in many subjects. Most importantly, I believe that men and women have the equal ability to do whatever they want to do in life. Just because a man opens a door for me and insists I enter first, I don’t believe he is questioning my ability to open a door for myself. If I open a door for a man, I am not considered masculine I am considered polite. So why is it that certain women believe there to be a hidden motive to when a man opens a door for a woman? If a man opened a door for another man, is he believed to be gay and have secret motives for that man? Sometimes, people are genuinely polite. However, A. Lynn does not agree, she states in her No Chivalry, Thanks! article that her disdain in chivalry comes from the notion that women need special assistance and wooing. The idea that there is a hidden incentive has not evolved from chivalry but instead of one’s past or a situation considered to be common in someone’s community placing the “blame” of hidden motives on the wrong idea. Chivalry is no longer the medieval idea that women are fragile and need an immense amount of protection and outrageous acts proving their loyalty to their beloved. “Chivalry is about respect. Respect for yourself and for your lover and the commitment to serve and honor each other” (Shannon Morgan, Defending Camelot). Morgan’s idea of chivalry being about respect is gender neutral, something that is not specified for man or woman, but equal. A feminist sees Morgan’s idea of chivalry and focus on the word “serving” the most obvious term taking women back to the fifties and the image of a woman stationed in a kitchen doing their wifely duties. Instead of physically serving one another, it refers to mutually meeting each others relationship needs. According to the Go Ask Alice article on masculine women, Gender roles have evolved into social norms, often describing what men and women "should" do or what is considered admirable or attractive for their sex. Because of the gender roles evolution of social norms it is most definitely okay for a women to be chivalrous as well. In modern society there seems to be a spectrum for just about any idea society is presented with. Spectrums are possible because of the various exceptions to each belief. For example, not all women are radical, male-bashing feminists, just as not all women are born romantics with an appreciation for old-fashioned gender roles. The spectrum is wide and long, and each woman falls at some varying degree (Christy Krumm, Do Women Have The Right To Expect Chivalry From Men?). Just like the feminist spectrum, there is a chivalry spectrum. The chivalry spectrum repeals the generalized idea of chivalry is deconstructing equality for men and women and that chivalry is only meant for men. A. Lynn argues the idea that feminism and chivalry are inherently incompatible followed by, women that want chivalry do not typically identify as feminists. If feminists crave equality, then why not make chivalry equal and gender neutral? From one end of the spectrum of buying gifts and traditional gender roles to “bring chivalrous, in a romantic sense, is intimate” (Morgan). Depending on the couple and their open mindedness, a switch in traditional roles could be possible and intimacy is possible for each individual. Chivalry can be considered a “deal breaker” to women because it can be overwhelming and extremely clingy. An uncomfortable overwhelming sensation in a relationship can be extremely difficult to coexist with. Anaïs Nin once said, “I, with a deeper instinct, choose a man who compels my strength, who makes enormous demands on me, who does not doubt my courage or my toughness, who does not believe me naïve or innocent, who has the courage to treat me like a woman.” I strongly believe in this quote because it is what most women want, with the exception of certain women who expect otherwise. The idea of being treated like a woman also has a wide spectrum based on what women believe they deserve. Due to feminists opposed to entirely opposed to chivalry and women who still believe in it men are (what baseball refers to) stuck in a pickle. Being stuck in a pickle is going back and forth between bases while attempting to steal a base while the defense is practically playing catch waiting to tag the player out. Men seem to be stuck in a pickle in modern society, they’re stuck between allowing chivalry to live on and letting it die. In Charlotte Hays article Chivalry Sinks Under Equality’s Murky Waters she explains the sinking of the Costa Concordia and how men fought to have a seat in a lifeboat. Comparing the sinking of the Costa Concordia to that of the Titanic the idea that men did not allow women and children first was repulsive to some. I’m sure A. Lynn would not find that fact to be horrible because she believes that just because she is a woman does not mean she needs assistance in surviving, no damsel in distress there. I don’t believe chivalry is dead, I think that it is confused with what women want. If women want equality, is it not equal for a man to strive to save his life or family’s life as much as a women is striving to save her life or her family’s life? Ultimately, I wouldn’t be offended if a man opened a door for me and insisted I enter first, if a man offers his seat on the bus, or even his seat on a lifeboat. The spectrum of feminism and chivalry is wide, and there are many people in this world for me to say whether or not chivalry is right or wrong, dead or alive. Although I do accept and enjoy certain traditional gender roles, I do expect to be seen on the same level as men with ability to strive and succeed in whatever I pursue. Education is not meant for women or man, work for manual labor to office positions are not meant for man or women, it is meant for the person who possesses the proper skills which is available to those who seek it. Unfortunately, people have experienced an interaction with someone who had alternative motives leading them to believe that most people do or act however they may because they have a motive. It may sound naive, but sometimes people are polite because that’s who they are. Chivalry is not dead but it is slowly being beat down by equal rights, feminism, and particular relationship histories.